FACTSHEET

FACTSHEET WEEKLY WASH CENTRE MONITORING AL ZA’ATARI REFUGEE CAMP, JORDAN 08 – 14 JUNE 2014

Within the dynamic context of Al Za’atari Camp, there are information gaps which hinder aid planning, delivery and tracking. Supported by UNICEF, REACH undertakes weekly monitoring of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) centres across the camp to provide up-to-date information on the quality of WASH infrastructure, with reference to the minimum standards developed by the Al Za’atari WASH Sector Working Group. This factsheet provides an overview of the camp’s WASH facilities, disaggregated to district level to help facilitate the design and efficacy of interventions. Data at the level of individual WASH centres is also available upon request. The analysis presented in this factsheet represents the findings from data collected by REACH for the week ending 14 June 2014. All WASH centres in Al Za’atari that have been handed over to WASH committees were assessed, with the exception of locked centres which could not be accessed for the assessment. Destroyed and damaged centres not currently being maintained were removed from the analysis to provide a more accurate assessment of active WASH centres. For more information regarding the methodology, or to request access to the full dataset, please contact: [email protected].

OVERALL CONDITION OF WASH CENTRES  18 WASH centres (5%) met all minimum standards assessed here,1 which was 6 centres more than the previous week.  80% of WASH centres failed to meet 2 or more minimum standards assessed here, a similar proportion to the previous week.  District 6 had the highest number of centres meeting the minimum standards, while districts 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 12 did not have any centres meeting all the minimum standards assessed here (see Figure 1 below and annexed Map 1).  A higher proportion of female WASH centres (83%) than male WASH centres (74%) failed to meet 2 or more minimum standards (see annexed Maps 2 and 3).  The minimum standards most frequently unmet related to disposal of diapers and menstrual hygiene materials (unmet in 93% of female centres), lighting (unmet in 59% of all centres), cleanliness and hygiene (unmet in 54%), cubicle doors (unmet in 53%), and internal locks (unmet in 40%). This represented an improvement from the previous week in relation to cleanliness and hygiene and internal locks, but deterioration across all other minimum standards assessed here.

1

1

The minimum standards assessed here at the level of the individual WASH centre are: (1) Doors on 100% of latrines and shower cubicles (2) At least one latrine and shower cubicle in each WASH centre has an internal lock (3) 100% of WASH centres have lighting (this standard was considered met if they had internal OR external lighting) (4) Facilities are clean and hygienic (this standard was considered met if no faeces was found outside the stalls, inside shower stalls or inside toilet stalls outside of the squat pan) (5) No visible sign of septic tank overflow (6) There is an arrangement for disposal of baby diapers & menstrual hygiene materials (assessed in female WASH centres only)

Figure 1: Percentage of WASH centres meeting minimum standards by district

TOILETS  84% (1,733) of WASH centre toilets were functional, similar to the previous week.  The proportion of functional toilets ranged from 30% in District 3 to over 95% in districts 10, 11 and 12.  There was one functioning toilet per 50 people,2 meeting the minimum standard which states that in communal facilities latrines should be available at a rate of one functional toilet per 50 people. Figure 2: Functioning toilets per district

WATER Running Water  77% of WASH centres did not have running water at the time of the assessment, a 4% increase from the previous week.  No centres in District 2 had running water available at the time of assessment, and only one district (District 5) had running water in more than 35% of centres (see annexed Map 4).

2

2

This is based on population figures (86,040) from the latest REACH comprehensive camp assessment done in June 2014.

 The lack of running water could indicate issues with water delivery, and could also be due to people immediately draining public water tanks in order to store water at household level. Not having running water available at WASH centres is likely to impact the ability of refugees to maintain personal hygiene (including hand-washing practices). It may also have an impact on the cleanliness of centres, making it more difficult for committees to clean facilities and for individuals to flush toilets after use. Figure 3: WASH centres with running water at the time of assessment

Taps  In WASH centres with running water, 93% of taps were functional (see Figure 4 below).  Due to the high number of WASH centres that did not have running water available at the time of assessment, water flowed from only 9% of all WASH centre taps in the camp.  Only 43% of shelters are within 100m of a WASH centre with an external water point, indicating that the minimum standard of having 100% of households within 100m of the nearest functional external water point is likely not being met.3 This figure ranges from 0% in districts 2, 12 and 3 to 89% in District 6 (see annexed Map 5).  There are 178 external taps,4 which amounts to one external tap for 483 people.5 This falls short of the minimum standard which states there should be one functioning external tap for 100 people.

3

NB: For practical reasons this analysis looks only at percentage of shelters, whereas the minimum standard relates to percentage of households. Given that some households have more than one shelter, it is not an accurate measure but is useful as an indication. 4 Refugees have expressed a strong preference to use only external taps (and not taps inside the WASH centres) for drinking water. 5This is based on population figures (86,040) from the latest REACH comprehensive camp assessment done in June 2014. The number of taps includes

only external taps at WASH centres and not taps at free-standing water points.

3

Figure 4: Functioning internal and external taps in WASH centres with running water

PRIVATE CONNECTIONS  47 private connections were observed connecting to water tanks, 30 less than in the previous week. Connections were observed in 7% of WASH centres. No connections were seen in districts 6, 7 or 8.  91 private connections were observed connecting to WASH centre taps, 8 more than the previous week. Connections were observed in 12% of WASH centres. No connections were seen in districts 1, 2, 3, 8 or 12.  50 private connections were observed connecting to WASH centre septic tanks,6 eight more than in the previous week. Connections were observed in 7% of WASH centres. No connections were seen in districts 1, 2, 3, 7 or 12.

DOORS AND LOCKS  53% of WASH centres failed to meet the minimum standard of having doors for all toilet and shower stalls, a similar proportion to the previous week.  37% of centres not meeting the standard were female WASH centres, a similar proportion to the previous week. Figure 5: Toilet and shower stalls with doors

NB: This includes both connections directly into the septic tank using pipes, and connections that go close to but not into the septic tank (including ditches). 6

4

 40% of WASH centres failed to meet the minimum standard of having at least one shower and one toilet cubicle with a functioning internal lock. This was nonetheless a 7% improvement on the previous week.  44% of centres not meeting the standard were female WASH centres, down from 61% the previous week.  55% of toilet stalls and 43% of shower stalls had lockable doors, a 10% improvement on each from the previous week. Figure 6: WASH centres with at least one shower and one toilet cubicle with a functioning internal lock

LIGHTING  41% of WASH centres had internal or external lighting installed,7 which is a 4% decrease from the previous week.  The proportion of centres with lighting installed ranged from 10% in District 9 to 88% in District 6 (see annexed Map 6).  Of the 212 WASH centres that had no internal or external lighting, 35% were female centres. Figure 7: WASH centres with internal or external lighting installed

7 NB:

5

As REACH data collection takes place in the daytime, it is not possible to assess whether the (automatic) lighting is functional.

SANITARY WASTE DISPOSAL  162 female WASH centres (87%) failed to meet the minimum standard of having an arrangement for disposing of diapers and menstrual hygiene materials, a similar proportion to the previous week.8  Disposal facilities were only available in districts 1, 3, 7 and 8. Figure 8: WASH centres with arrangements for disposing of diaper and menstrual material

CLEANLINESS OF FACILITIES  46% of WASH centres were considered clean and hygienic,9 a 6% increase from the previous week.  District 6 had the highest proportion of clean and hygienic WASH centres, while District 5 did not have any clean and hygienic WASH centres. Figure 9: Clean and hygienic WASH centres

8 9

6

This was only assessed in female WASH blocks. Facilities are considered clean and hygienic if no faeces was found in shower stalls, toilet stalls outside of the squat pan or outside the stalls.

SEWAGE AND STAGNANT WATER  99% of WASH centre septic tanks showed no visible sign of septic tank overflow.10  67% of WASH centres had no stagnant water inside or outside the centre. This fell short of the minimum standard of 80% of communal WASH facilities having no stagnant water.  81% of WASH centres had no stagnant water inside the WASH centre and 79% had no stagnant water on the ground outside.

ACCESS  3 WASH centres were locked and therefore the REACH team was unable to gain access. These were in districts 3 and 8.  545 individual toilet or shower stalls (26% of all stalls) were locked at the time of assessment, which is the same as the previous week.11  209 WASH centres (58%) did not have at least one unlocked stall for persons with disabilities at the time of the assessment, which is an 8% increase from the previous week.

About REACH REACH is a joint initiative of two international NGOs - ACTED and IMPACT Initiatives - and the UN Operational Satellite Applications Programme (UNOSAT). REACH was created in 2010 to facilitate the development of information tools and products that enhance the capacity of aid actors to make evidence-based decisions in emergency, recovery and development contexts. All REACH activities are conducted in support to and within the framework of inter-agency aid coordination mechanisms. For more information visit: www.reach-initiative.org and follow us @REACH_info

Due to the difficulty of distinguishing between overflow and sewage/stagnant water close to the septic tank as a result of private connections, it is unclear whether the minimum standard of zero WASH centre sewage tank overflow incidents per week in each district has been met. 11 This could be for a range of reasons, for example, community members keeping stalls locked for their own private use or cleaners locking them to keep them clean. This issue needs further investigation by WASH partners. 10

7

ANNEXES Map 1: WASH centres meeting core minimum standard

8

Map 2: Female WASH centres meeting core minimum standard

9

Map 3: Male WASH centres meeting core minimum standards

10

Map 4: WASH centres with running water at the time of assessment

11

Map 5: Shelters within 100m of a WASH centre with external water point

12

Map 6: Assessed WASH centres with internal or external lighting installed

13